Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Is that the point of this thread, then? To prove that some people are stupid and others are vastly superior when it comes to intellect? Is that too harsh? Or, is the point of this thread is to prove that believers don't have scientific proof for their beliefs?"Not from my perspective....I'm not out to prove that anyone is more or less smart than anyone else based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
As I mentioned in another post, if I see something that I feel is incorrect (and from what I've read, in the US atheists are the least trusted minority) then I challenge it. I don't want to turn people away from belief, but I do want those who have belief to understand some of the basics of atheism, so they don't see it as a threat or something to be mistrusted. As an atheist I do not have an alternative belief system to replace belief in a deity, I just don't believe in a deity (it's not the same thing). As an atheist I lead a moral life...I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I'm not living a selfish life ripping other people off or hurting other people because I don't believe in a deity who will either punish or reward me based on how I live.
Similarly if I make any claims or statements regarding those of belief, which those of you with faith feel are inaccurate, then I'm happy to be pulled up on that. It's what a discussion like this is all about...learning....
Mike wrote: "...I have to believe because happenstance beggars the imagination."Just because something beggars the imagination doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is required. It's ok in science to say "I don't know", in fact it's the default position. You then work from that to try and explain the previously unexplained. If you get it wrong, fine, try something else, but at no stage is it scientifically acceptable to say "we'll never know, so let's assume a supernatural cause".
Hazel wrote: "You are filling the gaps in our species knowledge with an explanation for which you have no proof, I could easily claim that it was the easter bunny having an orgasm that created the universe, and your claim for god has as much proof as that does. If people had been teaching for generations that it was the Easter bunny having an orgasm, that would probably be what you would be arguing for now: "science can't give me the answer right this second, so it must have been the Easter bunny"."It would certainly make the whole chocolate eggs thing make more sense!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6_sr_...
Shannon wrote: "Or, is it about proving one side right and another side wrong? "Not sides, but in some cases for particular people, yes it is about proving them wrong. Not in their faith, but in their perceptions of atheism, or if claims are made in regards to there being scientific evidence for a god (for example, I will argue with anyone who tries to bring (un)intelligent design to the table as evidence of a deity).
I will also try and point out the difficulty with some of the contradictory positions believers have, mainly along the lines of 'my god is the real god, those other gods are made up'.
Cerebus wrote: "Hazel wrote: "You are filling the gaps in our species knowledge with an explanation for which you have no proof, I could easily claim that it was the easter bunny having an orgasm that created the ..."that horny lagomorph was around long before Yahweh poked his head over the parapet. Should be a hare though, that was Eostre's creature, not a rabbit. Hares just aren't as cute as bunnies though, so our mad friend got the boot in favour of fluff...
Hazel wrote: "*sigh* cs, you keep claiming that because the physicists can't explain the what came before yet that it must of been god. Thats fallacious, you're presenting only one alternative "you can't explain..."I am not trying to inforce anything on anyone. I previously stated that I think god and religion can be seperated from each other and you can have one with out the other. I am being told here that it can't.
You don't want to believe anything until science tells you the solution to the problem, thats fine. Then you will have an answer, or should I say who ever is here in many years to come will have an answer.
I am not sure you grasp the concept of 'belief'. By believing you don't need evidence. Science will never come up with THE answer; it will come up with an answer but that will be open for others to challenge it. If man ever came up with the complete answer then man would be god.
Let me give an example of belief; you phone a close friend but get no answer, you try a few more times during the next few days, still no answer. You think thats odd but you are not concerned. Your friend has gone away for a few days before and forgot to take their mobile. Although you don't know if anything has happened to your friend you are not to concerned because for now you BELIEVE they are ok, it the sort of thing they would do. You are not going to look for evidence that they are ok because you would not know where to look and you are not so concerned that you would report them missing.
The only reason we have as to 'why we are here' is that there is a creator. We have no evidence, only belief and that will do until the folks who don't believe can come up with a better answer.
To argue that there is no creator but then say I don't know have any other answers does not make sense.
;) I get where you're coming from Cerebus. Going back to that quote about religious people and reason, though, which wasn't posted by you, I'd like to point out that not all religious people ... not all believers are the same or can be defined in a similar manner. For example, I believe in God, but I don't say my God is the real God and all others are made up. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but .... When I was a little girl, I remember trying to make sense out of God and the fact that so many people believed in so many different ones. I think I was reading some Greek myth or another at the time. My mother told me she believed it one God, and she believed that one God was the same ... the same as the ones others believed in. She told me she thought God appeared differently to different people and different cultures. That made a lot of sense to me at the time. And, this is where some will disagree with me, believers and non-believers both ... I still believe that. I believe in a higher power, in God. Personally, if I were to envision God, I guess I'd see light ... or energy. But, that's just me ... and I am not trying to convince people that this is true. I "see" God as I do, based on my beliefs and upbringing. Other people see God differently. But, I think that ... energy ... is one and the same. However, I might be wrong. Even if someone, a believer, told me I was wrong and that his/her God was different from mine, I would not tell that person s/he was mistaken. I wouldn't feel that or say it. That makes fitting into Christianity rather difficult for me, frankly. In addition, if you told me you did not believe in God, I would NOT tell you that you were wrong. A lot of believers would. True. Not all would.
And .... I like following your points and thinking about some of the things you bring up. I rather enjoy pondering many different things and want to learn. You've not made me feel that your intent is to prove that you're right.
And .... I like following your points and thinking about some of the things you bring up. I rather enjoy pondering many different things and want to learn. You've not made me feel that your intent is to prove that you're right.
Cerebus wrote: "Hazel wrote: "You are filling the gaps in our species knowledge with an explanation for which you have no proof, I could easily claim that it was the easter bunny having an orgasm that created the ..."'it was the easter bunny having an orgasm that created the universe'.
Good starting point. The easter bunny could either be god or the big bang.
Who created the easter bunny?
Shanna wrote: "Who created god?"You have to have a starting point, and for those who believe in god, they believe god has always been there, god didn't need creating.
Not a perfect answer, but I've yet to hear a better one.
Cerebus wrote: "Mike wrote: "...I have to believe because happenstance beggars the imagination."Just because something beggars the imagination doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is required. It's ok in scien..."
That still doesn't give a basis for believing that order instantly occurred from chaos. I just don't think the degree of order from the micro to the macro-cosm can be written off to a glorious singularity.
cs wrote: "To argue that there is no creator but then say I don't know have any other answers does not make sense."It makes more sense than to fill any gaps in your knowledge with a default position of "god did it". I am happy to say "I don't know" if I don't know, the need to have an explanation now for every possible question is a feature of religion. I'm not saying there isn't a creator, but I am saying that if that is the explanation that is given, where is the evidence for it....if there is no evidence then there are an infinity of equally valid explanations, so how do you decide which one to choose? If you are happy to say "god is my default position" that's fine, but there are those of us who can't do that.
cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Who created god?"You have to have a starting point, and for those who believe in god, they believe god has always been there, god didn't need creating.
Not a perfect answer, b..."
But the orgasmic easter bunny requires a creator and if it's god or the big bang?
Mike wrote: "That still doesn't give a basis for believing that order instantly occurred from chaos. I just don't think the degree of order from the micro to the macro-cosm can be written off to a glorious singularity. "Fine, but why does that make god the default explanation? How is that any more likely? Is there more evidence for it being god than "a glorious singularity"? At which point do you stop deferring to god and accept the scientific explanation? Things like star formation, galaxy formation, planet formation have scientific explanations, do you accept them, or credit god there too?
cs wrote: "You have to have a starting point, and for those who believe in god, they believe god has always been there, god didn't need creating. Not a perfect answer, but I've yet to hear a better one."
You have to have a starting point, unless you're talking about god? Why is god different? If you can ask "what was before the big bang?", why can't we ask "what was before god?". To say "there has to be a starting point" but then exempt your own explanation seems a bit disingenuous....
cs, first, I didn't mean that you were trying to enforce anything on anyone, I was just saying what I think warrants an outcry against someones belief rather than a healthy debate as we're having here, I'm sorry if my words implied that I meant you. Second, I do understand what belief is, and I also understand that you feel no need for evidence. However, understanding it does not mean I have to agree, being credulous is not a good trait, faith (ie belief without evidence) is not a laudable trait. And once again, you're arguing apples and oranges. With your example of the missing friend, we at least have evidence that that friend exists, thus it is not comparable to the claim about god existing.
The only reason we have as to 'why we are here' is that there is a creator. We have no evidence, only belief and that will do until the folks who don't believe can come up with a better answer.
thats a rather sweeping statement. No, its not "good enough until we show otherwise", its a poor explanation at best, as there's nothing to make it anything but an unsubstantiated claim. IN fact, it undermines your argument for belief, as if there is a god, that god knows that you are only accepting it as an answer because no-ones provided a better one yet, and not out of genuine faith. Or is that not what you intended to imply?
You see, I do understand the concept of belief, because I hold the belief that science will find the answer, and in the meantime, I'm not so full of hubris as to claim to know an answer, and would never cling to an answer that has no basis in the real world.
Now, back to the original statement you made about god and religion being separate. As I've said already, god has to be proved to exist before you can consider it separate to religion, otherwise all the evidence we have points to god being a creation of man, and thus a product of religion, and inseparable from it.
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion
This is the definition of religion, and the one I'm interested in here is 1a, where religion is simply the belief in a god or creator. So all it needs for religion is a belief in god. If a belief in god is, in and of itself, all you need for religion, then religion cannot be seperated from belief in god, and until you can prove that god is real, then theres no rational reason to assume that god exists as anything but a concept created by religious people, and is thus inseperable from religion. Think of it as a tangled knot, where you can't see if there's only one piece of string or two until you have untangled it. Until you untangle them, then they are inseparable from each other. And until you untangle them, then you cannot make statements about how many are there, as until you untangle them, you don't know, and can't claim to know, the answer.
I do understand your statement that god exists seperately from religion, in fact I'm inclined to agree that if some sort of deity does exist, then it wouldn't be as set out in any of the religions that exist. But as you make that claim that god exists separately to religion and its definitions, then the onus is on you to prove that, and to prove that god does exist in the first place in order to substantiate your claim. If you admit that you cannot, and that there is no proof for god, then we should do the reasonable thing, which is to assume that god exists only as a concept invented by religious people, and cannot be separated from religion. Of course, you can chose to believe it anyway, but that doesn't make it any more likely to be true, and credulity in relation to any claim is not a good trait.
Also, the fact that you keep arguing your case for a abrahamic god shows us that you, at least, are not separating god from your religious beliefs. You're arguing that god exists separate to religion, but that the god that is separate is the god of your religion, with the attributes assigned to it as set out in the bible. How do you know that? It is disingenous to argue for your definition of god being the one that exists, but also claiming that god is seperate to religion (which in my mind would make it distinct to the definitions that you, or anyone else, apply to it). And don't claim we can't imagine god as you've done before, as you've been using the abrahamic god as the god you're arguing for, and thus have been imagining what god is, and assigning an image and traits to it. If we truly cannot imagine it, then those images and traits are useless to your argument, as they are defining the apparently indefinable.
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "To argue that there is no creator but then say I don't know have any other answers does not make sense."It makes more sense than to fill any gaps in your knowledge with a default positi..."
You have hit the nail on the head. God is my default belief. None of us are here long enough to sit around and wait for science to come up with the correct answer so we have to make a judgement. The creator at this moment in time seems the best option.
It's ok not to have a view but it seems odd to me that some folks here are quick to dismiss an idea but are not able to give an alternative.
And a previous point of mine about believing in god but not having a religion it quite possible. Folks here seem to concerned with religion.
There are quite a few other things that can be put into this debate mix like, do we have a soul, are we not alone and is there life after death. One or more of these can be connected, with or without a god.
God is no ones default belief or position, no child is born knowing about god, the concept is taught and then you choose to accept or reject.You acknowledge that science will come up with the correct answer, yet you willfully choose an incorrect one, to do for now, because you can't wait... did I get that right?
If you don't know you don't just make up shit to have a alternative, you say "I don't know" it's honest.
Of course you can a believe in god without religion but then what is god?, what does it want from you?, what do you want/need from it?
I don't think there is such a thing as a soul.
We are not alone even in the nearby galaxies there are many planets in the goldilocks zone ie; not to big or small, or to far or near their star, don't rotate to fast or slow ect. So the chances are that in all the billions out there, that life didn't form on one or more is statically improbable, and that's only if you are looking for carbon based life forms like Earth's.
After death, nothing, you're dead you rot away or are cremated. There is no evidence for anything else that isn't explained by brain chemistry.
Shanna wrote: "God is no ones default belief or position, no child is born knowing about god, the concept is taught and then you choose to accept or reject.You acknowledge that science will come up with the cor..."
'After death, nothing, you're dead you rot away'.
Are you not doing what you are accusing me of doing,
If you don't know you don't just make up shit'.
There is no evidence for or against, so you are taking a default option.
In other galaxies there are Billions of planets in the goldilocks zone. So taking an average, which is what science does, we are neither the most advanced nor the least advanced form of life, we are in the middle. So where are all the other forms that must be millions of times more advanced than us, why have they not made contact, is science not able to reach that far; or have they been here already?
What are you asserting happens after death then? because there is no evidence anything happens anything at all.I don't presume to know why they haven't contacted us. I can hazard guesses but they are just that, guesses based on human frame of reference.
Shanna wrote: "What are you asserting happens after death then? because there is no evidence anything happens anything at all.I don't presume to know why they haven't contacted us. I can hazard guesses but they..."
I am not asserting anything, I am just saying that it is a possibillity that there is nothing or there is something. You believe nothing, I believe something.
by stating the belief that there is something, you make an assertion, you cannot have the belief without having the claim on which the belief is based. Thus by stating the belief, you are making a claim.By asserting that you believe there is something after death, you are making a claim, and as such, the onus is on you to prove that. It doesn't matter whether you define what that is, the very assertion that there is "something" is enough to create the question "can you prove that? what evidence do you have?"
I reject the claim that there is something after death, and I do so based on the evidence of how the brain works, and what we have recorded as people die.
You believe nothing, I believe something
I dispute this, I believe a lot of things, I believe in rocks, and cats, and dolphins, I believe in cars, and oxygen, and protons. You probably believe in all these things too, but when it gets to something where I give the honest answer of "I don't know", then you chose to fill it with an unsubstantiated claim. Paradise after death would be great, as would reincarnation, but I don't believe something just because thats how I would like it to be, or because its a nice, warm fuzzy thought.
The way you word it, that its better than believing "nothing" makes it seem to me that you're saying you don't really believe it, you just want the comfort of having an easy answer to the bigger questions. belief as comfort is all very well, but when you phrase it the way you do, that its better than not having anything until someone comes up with something better, do you realise that if there is a god, it knows thats the only reason you give it any credence, and as such, have failed its "test" of devotion already.
Also, you earlier stated that you didn't have to provide any proof. If thats what you think, then why did you get involved in this conversation? If you get into this sort of conversation, you're going to be asked to back up any claim or statement that you make regards your beliefs. If you're happy with your beliefs, and don't feel the need for proof, or that they don't need defending, then why are you here, defending them?
You do sound like someone who has all the text book answers. Maybe from reading to many philosophy books.What I keep stating and you keep ignoring is that I 'believe' there is a god. The Dictionary defines belief as:
'confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof'
Quote Hazel: "Also, you earlier stated that you didn't have to provide any proof. If thats what you think, then why did you get involved in this conversation"
Because the question asked was 'Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion'?
I'm sorry it's my mistake for thinking that anyone with a belief should even be allowed a view on this thread.
Why don't I now drop out and you can carry on the debate with those who have the same point of view as you do.
I never said you shouldn't have a view, but if you're so convinced that you don't need to defend anything you put in your original post, you could have ignored any post questioning it, and just moved on to other things. Your original post is a stand alone, it is not part of a conversation yet, the conversation starts when you respond to someone questioning it.I never said you should leave the debate, in fact I quite enjoy the conversation we're having. I'm just confused that you take the stance that you don't have to defend what you say with evidence etc, while actively engaging in a debate with people who are going to ask for you to do so, it must have become obvious very quickly that that was the case. It seems contradictory to me, to engage with people who have opposing views from you, and then to claim that you don't need to defend your statements. Thats what a debate is.
I don't understand why you continue, when you have said that you don't need proof, if you're so content in that position, then why do you need to respond any further if we question it? You can simply say "this is what I believe, I'm not going to debate it, have a nice day, y'all" and leave it at that, plenty of other people have done so. By actively engaging in the debate, then you are held to the same rules of debating as we are, which include having evidence for any claims we make, as thats what reasonable people do, they make an argument, and back it up with evidence, and if you feel what someone says is incorrect, you say so, and have evidence to back up why you think that. Otherwise its not a debate.
As for us ignoring that you state you believe there is a god, thats not true, we have acknowledged that, but we have also acknowledged that you then later seem to say that believing in god is a good stop gap until someone provides a better answer. And we have questioned this seeming contradiction.
If you believe in god, then fine, if you don't feel the need to defend that belief, thats also fine, but in participating in a conversation in which someone questioned your statement, then you are shouldering the responsibility of backing up your claims. If you don't want that responsibility, then back out, no-one will think less of you. Personally, like I said earlier in this post, I have enjoyed the conversation, but will not force, nor expect you to continue unless you wish to, but if you wish to continue, then you have to shoulder the responsibility of supporting your claims.
Hazel --
You realize ... I realize ... I believe most of us realize that ....
Believers are not able to offer scientific evidence, irrefutable proof, for the existence of God.
So, given what you've mentioned in the above post, do believers have a place in this thread?
You stated,
"By actively engaging in the debate, then you are held to the same rules of debating as we are, which include having evidence for any claims we make, as thats what reasonable people do, they make an argument, and back it up with evidence, and if you feel what someone says is incorrect, you say so, and have evidence to back up why you think that."
If the "rules" include a need for scientific evidence, it would seem that you're saying believers don't have a place here. I'm not sure that's what you really mean. But, it seems that way, so I'm voicing the question.
Again, one could ask ....
What is the point of this thread?
Further, as I've mentioned before, people are different. There are people from different cultures who inhabit this planet ... and GR ... who might define "reasonable" differently. Not everyone is strictly scientific-minded. I'm not talking about people who reject science. I'm talking about people who respect and value science and other ways of viewing and experiencing life and the world.
Is there room, for those of us who are different, in this thread?
You realize ... I realize ... I believe most of us realize that ....
Believers are not able to offer scientific evidence, irrefutable proof, for the existence of God.
So, given what you've mentioned in the above post, do believers have a place in this thread?
You stated,
"By actively engaging in the debate, then you are held to the same rules of debating as we are, which include having evidence for any claims we make, as thats what reasonable people do, they make an argument, and back it up with evidence, and if you feel what someone says is incorrect, you say so, and have evidence to back up why you think that."
If the "rules" include a need for scientific evidence, it would seem that you're saying believers don't have a place here. I'm not sure that's what you really mean. But, it seems that way, so I'm voicing the question.
Again, one could ask ....
What is the point of this thread?
Further, as I've mentioned before, people are different. There are people from different cultures who inhabit this planet ... and GR ... who might define "reasonable" differently. Not everyone is strictly scientific-minded. I'm not talking about people who reject science. I'm talking about people who respect and value science and other ways of viewing and experiencing life and the world.
Is there room, for those of us who are different, in this thread?
I didn't ask for scientific evidence, i asked for good evidence, and that it should be better than eyewitness testimony, as our brains are poor at getting things right, and better than anecdotal, and better than a source which has no corresponding sources to collaborate it (cross referencing, a good way of ensuring feasibility).I never said scientific evidence, I said good evidence.
Its simply not a debate if all someone brings to it is "this is what I believe, this is what I believe, this is what I believe", and simply refuse to engage in a discussion of their beliefs beyond that. Beliefs are not sacrosanct anymore, they are open to investigation, open to be questioned, and open to be criticised, everything is open to all these things. I have no issue with anyone who says "this is what I believe, but I don't want to debate it". Thats all fine. If however, you start saying "this is what I believe, and what you are showing me evidence for is wrong (or even worse, they're just not looking at the evidence, which is what I'm starting to suspect with cs)" or "I believe this because its better than anything else people have come up with", then they should be able to say why they think its better, and try to support their point with evidence.
People with alternate views can easily get involved in discussions like this, they simply need to be able to back up what they're saying. And I have seen people do so, even if the evidence they present is then disputed or shown to be something else, they at least are still presenting their evidence.
thats how debates work, argument and counter argument, evidence and counter evidence. other wise, its simply not a debate, its someone repeating themselves, thinking that saying it the 10th time will make any difference to the questions being asked about it compared to when they said it the first time. The statement being questioned should not be used to answer the question that was questioning the statement. I don't like that sentence, its clumsy, but I think it says what I want it to.
Any debate requires evidence of clearly defined concepts or where is the debate? It just becomes a statement of feelings and you can state that, now if you accept the challenge of a debate then you accept it, it not my fault your side has poor quality evidence, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Of course there is room for everyone but that doesn't make point's of view unchallengable or rejectable if they don't hold water.
No one is forcing anyone to debate, if someone comes here it's because they want to
I wonder if some who come here want to answer the question and just answer the question. Or, I wonder if some who come here want to take part in a discussion. A discussion is quite different from a debate.
For those who've not had first-hand experience with this thread or haven't read all of the posts prior to answering, well, they might not understand that some consider this to be a debate, with the need for evidence, with rules that need to be abided by, etc....
And, regarding evidence ...
If ... "eyewitness testimony, as our brains are poor at getting things right, and better than anecdotal, and better than a source which has no corresponding sources to collaborate it (cross referencing, a good way of ensuring feasibility)" ... isn't good evidence, I wonder what would constitute good evidence. Not scientific evidence but good evidence ... that doesn't not include eyewitness testimony, anything anecdotal, or sources without corresponding sources. I truly wonder what that would be, in relation to proving God exists?
I know when I was questioned regarding my beliefs, I gave anecdotal reasons for them. Interestingly, there are some, myself included, who a considerable amount of stock in their own experiences. Sometimes, they even place more value in their own experiences and the experiences of people they know well versus research done by strangers. Again, for some, that's not in order to disregard science or reason or research. It has to do with a different cultural upbringing and a different world-view.
So, again, I wonder ...
Are people who are different welcomed here? Or, if people don't have "good proof" to back their words and beliefs, are they expected to sign off and go elsewhere?
For those who've not had first-hand experience with this thread or haven't read all of the posts prior to answering, well, they might not understand that some consider this to be a debate, with the need for evidence, with rules that need to be abided by, etc....
And, regarding evidence ...
If ... "eyewitness testimony, as our brains are poor at getting things right, and better than anecdotal, and better than a source which has no corresponding sources to collaborate it (cross referencing, a good way of ensuring feasibility)" ... isn't good evidence, I wonder what would constitute good evidence. Not scientific evidence but good evidence ... that doesn't not include eyewitness testimony, anything anecdotal, or sources without corresponding sources. I truly wonder what that would be, in relation to proving God exists?
I know when I was questioned regarding my beliefs, I gave anecdotal reasons for them. Interestingly, there are some, myself included, who a considerable amount of stock in their own experiences. Sometimes, they even place more value in their own experiences and the experiences of people they know well versus research done by strangers. Again, for some, that's not in order to disregard science or reason or research. It has to do with a different cultural upbringing and a different world-view.
So, again, I wonder ...
Are people who are different welcomed here? Or, if people don't have "good proof" to back their words and beliefs, are they expected to sign off and go elsewhere?
And ...
To be clear, I'm not advocating that questions not be asked on this thread. Go Socrates!
I questioned the following ...
"By actively engaging in the debate, then you are held to the same rules of debating as we are, which include having evidence for any claims we make, as thats what reasonable people do, they make an argument, and back it up with evidence, and if you feel what someone says is incorrect, you say so, and have evidence to back up why you think that."
If believers lack evidence, scientific evidence or "good" evidence, are they not "allowed" to take part in this thread ... be it in the form of discussion or debate?
Are people who are different welcomed in this thread?
And, if they're welcomed only if they have "good" evidence, are they welcomed at all?
To be clear, I'm not advocating that questions not be asked on this thread. Go Socrates!
I questioned the following ...
"By actively engaging in the debate, then you are held to the same rules of debating as we are, which include having evidence for any claims we make, as thats what reasonable people do, they make an argument, and back it up with evidence, and if you feel what someone says is incorrect, you say so, and have evidence to back up why you think that."
If believers lack evidence, scientific evidence or "good" evidence, are they not "allowed" to take part in this thread ... be it in the form of discussion or debate?
Are people who are different welcomed in this thread?
And, if they're welcomed only if they have "good" evidence, are they welcomed at all?
The point here is that what people believe, and whats real don't always go happily hand in hand. And so its important to work out which ones do. And to do that, we have to be critical and skeptical. If someone doesn't wish to debate, then no doubt, they will simply say so.And discussion is the same as debate, debate is just a more formal term.
dis·cus·sion [dih-skuhsh-uhn] Show IPA
noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.
So even in discussion you need to present reason and proof for what you're discussing, and theres an exchange of ideas, that can be investigated for their tenability, and excepted or rejected on their individual merit.
Now, if someone was just wanting a nice chat, then its best to do that with people of the same mindset.
the very title of this thread screams "debate".
Shannon wrote: "And ...To be clear, I'm not advocating that questions not be asked on this thread. Go Socrates!
I questioned the following ...
"By actively engaging in the debate, then you are held to the sam..."
of course people are, but debate needs set guidelines, and one universally accepted rule of debate is that you provide evidence and proof to back up your arguments, and then the other party gets to refute and rebut, with evidence of their own.
Right now, it appears the only point to this thread is to define what the purpose of the thread is, which is circular, pointless, and quite frankly, boring.
@Shannon, there has to be a requirement for evidence for much of this discussion....this does not have to be evidence for the existence of god necessarily, although that can be an interesting question....For me the main requirement for evidence comes when claims are made, such as "atheists have no reason to be moral"....a claim like that requires evidence to support it. If there is none, then it can be rejected. If left unchallenged then it allows the concept to gain validity. For a long time religious belief has been treated with a deference not afforded to other subjects, and which resulted in misconceptions such as the above being left unchallenged, with people afraid to question these statements for fear of being seen as intolerant of religion, or in an attempt to be politically correct. I am not intolerant of religion believe it or not, but I am intolerant of ill-considered (or more usually not-at-all-considered) blanket statements such as "atheists have no reason to be moral".
Another example is the common appeal to authority with regards to the religiousness of people like Einstein, which actually does have something which could be considered evidence in the form of some of his quotes...but people raising these particular quotes should not be surprised if other quotes are then used as evidence of a contrary position. (I'm not getting into the irrelevance of appeal to authority here, just using this as an example of why we require evidence to forward this discussion).
Even if the person we are discussing these things with is someone who is obviously unlikely to change their mind, or accept any evidence which contradicts their position, there are many people contributing to this thread, and presumably more who read but don't contribute, so leaving a claim unchallenged simply because the claimant is unlikely to provide or accept evidence is not a good choice as it can leave a wrong impression in the minds of others.....
When it comes to your belief, I am fine with you having that belief, and have no desire to dissuade you from that belief (and while reluctant to speak for others, based on discussions I would be surprised if Hazel was trying to sway you from your belief), but if you or anyone else makes a claim of any kind, based on your belief or otherwise, then it is open to requests of evidence to back it up (for example, some people have claimed in this discussion that the bible is scientific....when making a claim like that, whoever is making the claim should expect to be asked to provide evidence, presumably in references to passages in the bible, to support that position, and should not be surprised if others then critically examine, and possibly reject (with evidence or reasons provided!), that evidence as being insufficient to support the claim).
I think I've rambled an awful lot here, but hopefully it makes some sort of sense :)
Again, go Socrates!!
The question .... Are believers who have no proof, good or scientific, welcomed to take part in this discussion? Or, given the fact that they're not able to follow the rules, are they "encouraged" to be silent or go elsewhere? Are differences not "allowed" in this thread?
Boring? Or, ...
Ironic?
The question .... Are believers who have no proof, good or scientific, welcomed to take part in this discussion? Or, given the fact that they're not able to follow the rules, are they "encouraged" to be silent or go elsewhere? Are differences not "allowed" in this thread?
Boring? Or, ...
Ironic?
Shannon wrote: " Are believers who have no proof, good or scientific, welcomed to take part in this discussion?"Absolutely, but with the expectation that any claims that are made will be subject to discussion....
At the end of the day this would be a short thread if it consisted of "I'm a believer, so I vote religion" followed by "I'm a non-believer, so I vote science". I'm less interested in the position people hold, than in the reasons they hold that position, so questioning that position inevitably enters into it. Requests for evidence, and questioning that evidence, are an attempt to find common ground, not in the sense of necessarily changing people's views, but in agreeing on terms of reference etc. Without that we're all effectively just talking to ourselves, and talking past each other.
No one is encouraged to be silent or goes elsewhere, people are encouraged to discuss "Where is the proof that backs you up?" that's an invitation. Discussion as Hazel provided a definition of is not a merely a statement of belief, that's a quote book, this is a discussion. If you assert something that defines other people in some way, then defend it.And again the fact "THEY" have none or cannot furnish proof is not our fault, the onus is on the claimant. The defence/prosecution is not responsible for doing the others job. Just as it's not my job to speak for you in a discussion it's yours.
Differences are what make this thread.
If I understand you, I believe we're on the same page. Questioning is a good thing. We definitely learn through questioning ... questioning and experience.
My point ... people are different. I believe I mentioned that some put a lot of stock in personal experience ... their own and that of others. Some would base many of their beliefs upon personal experience.
When I explained why I believed as I did several months ago, based on different experiences I had, I was fine with being questioned about it. I was even fine with being told I was wrong. I was open-minded and considered the information offered and pondered my experience and whether or not I was wrong. I came away from that experience still believing as I had before. My choice. But, it was after considerable thought.
So, truly, my point is not that people shouldn't question, as I've clearly stated.
My point is ....
If people, in this case believers, don't have "good" evidence or "scientific" evidence ... if they only have eye witness accounts and anecdotes, are they being told they shouldn't take part in this discussion, given that they're not following the rules?
That, clearly, is my point. If I wasn't clear before, I hope this resolves the misconception.
If you're saying, Cerebus and Shanna, that people are welcome to enter this discussion, even if they're not following the "rules" that you follow and lack "good" evidence or "scientific" evidence, we're on the same page.
My point ... people are different. I believe I mentioned that some put a lot of stock in personal experience ... their own and that of others. Some would base many of their beliefs upon personal experience.
When I explained why I believed as I did several months ago, based on different experiences I had, I was fine with being questioned about it. I was even fine with being told I was wrong. I was open-minded and considered the information offered and pondered my experience and whether or not I was wrong. I came away from that experience still believing as I had before. My choice. But, it was after considerable thought.
So, truly, my point is not that people shouldn't question, as I've clearly stated.
My point is ....
If people, in this case believers, don't have "good" evidence or "scientific" evidence ... if they only have eye witness accounts and anecdotes, are they being told they shouldn't take part in this discussion, given that they're not following the rules?
That, clearly, is my point. If I wasn't clear before, I hope this resolves the misconception.
If you're saying, Cerebus and Shanna, that people are welcome to enter this discussion, even if they're not following the "rules" that you follow and lack "good" evidence or "scientific" evidence, we're on the same page.
Shannon wrote: "Again, go Socrates!!The question .... Are believers who have no proof, good or scientific, welcomed to take part in this discussion? Or, given the fact that they're not able to follow the rules..."
I thought the topic is supposed to be "would you rather live in a world without science or a world without religion", i.e. which of the two, science or religion, has more positive effect on our life, or, whether or not religion can have positive effect on our life at all.
If we debate whether or not the existence of god can be proved scientifically I guess it wouldn't be very interesting b/c AFAIK most believers and non-believers, except a few fanatics like those in Saudi Arabia, would simply say "no" to that. On the other hand, I do agree with Shannon that people generally have certain tolerance of contradictions in their belief system and might not be willing to ask for "scientific evidence" for everything.
Shannon wrote: "If people, in this case believers, don't have "good" evidence or "scientific" evidence ... if they only have eye witness accounts and anecdotes, are they being told they shouldn't take part in this discussion, given that they're not following the rules?"I don't think of this discussion as having rules to follow, but I do think there should be an expectation (in any discussion, not just this one) that if you make a claim you will be asked to back up that claim. And like everything in life people have differences in what they will accept as evidence....making a claim and refusing to offer any evidence is pointless, but it is also possible that what you offer as sufficient evidence to convince yourself is not sufficient to convince others. It doesn't mean you shouldn't offer the evidence, but you shouldn't be surprised if others have a different expectation and don't find the evidence as convincing as you do. And interestingly in this thread some of the people requiring the most evidence, to the point of solipsism, have been believers....
I should point out that evidence isn't the only thing that is necessary....if someone comes out with what seems to be illogical then they should expect that to be open for discussion as well...the most recent example of this being cs saying that if the answer to something is unknown then his default is to assume god. I, and others, find that a strange position, one I don't understand, so it became a point of discussion. The fact that it became a point of discussion seemed to surprise cs, which is what lead to some claims of hostility...I was genuinely trying to understand his position, but found it didn't make much sense to me. The important point though is, just because it was an opinion held as a result of a religious belief does not exempt it from being questioned. At no stage am I going to think "that doesn't make sense to me, but because it is a religious belief then I mustn't question it out of deference to that person's religion". Religion no more exempts an expressed opinion from discussion than does political persuasion, favourite colour or anything else.
Xdyj wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Again, go Socrates!!The question .... Are believers who have no proof, good or scientific, welcomed to take part in this discussion? Or, given the fact that they're not able t..."
It started that way, but after 50 pages and close to 2,500 posts it is hardly surprising that the topic has morphed somewhat....to be honest it's closer to being on topic that most other online discussions would be at this stage. This is not a moderated forum, it is not a website that is restricted to a narrow field of interest, so if we end up discussing why rice pudding is the closest I've ever come to finding evidence of the devil then there's no reason people can't either a) get involved in that discussion, b) ignore it and steer the conversation in the direction they think it should be going, or c) go read a book....
That it has become a discussion on differing standards of evidence is irrelevant really....if you don't want to discuss that, then don't...the best way to bring it back to whether we should or could live without either religion or science is to make a point that is relevant and no doubt there are those of us (like a dog with a bone) who'll jump right in :)
Shannon wrote: "If you're saying, Cerebus and Shanna, that people are welcome to enter this discussion, even if they're not following the "rules" that you follow and lack "good" evidence or "scientific" evidence, we're on the same page"That being said and agreed with.
Who has been told to go away?
Does that mean I have to accept every nonsense claim and view point as valid and acceptable?
Is no one (including myself) to be questioned and their claim scrutinised?
Do not the basic rules of human interaction apply the to and fro of conversation in case anyone is offended? What is the frame of reference, you suggest, for understanding each other if we don't require people to adhere to the universally accepted rules of interaction and debate?
When I asked cs to back up his claim, he could have offered anything that he considered evidence for what he was saying. Instead he avoided the question, though to his merit, he did ask me what I would consider to be good evidence, so I explained. The majority of this talk about presenting evidence has directly and indirectly come from that point. I explained what was bad evidence and what was good evidence, and thus what someone would need to present for something to be accepted as feasible and/or well supported. This does not preclude anyone offering what they think is good evidence, even if I, or others, don't agree. And thats where I, or others, would present a counter argument, with evidence, of what could explain what they have described. Its not so much a demand to be shown that they can prove something, but a request to see what has led them to believe what they do, to understand, and then we may question it, bot to change belief, but for the purpose of debate itself, and to present alternative (and in our minds, more feasible an d reasonable) explanations for anything they have presented, using evidence to show why we think what we do.As you have said Shannon, we did that when you presented your evidence, I suggested some alternative explanations, and we talked about coincidences and probabilities, if I recall correctly (I'm not trawling back though to find it, its aaaaaggggeeeesss ago), you then went quiet for a couple of days, and came back and said after due consideration, you still think theres a god that was involved in your experiences. Thats fine, thats cool, you have decided that level of evidence is enough for you, but also accepted that its not enough for everyone. As long as you're happy, then great :) And to your merit, you didn't actually make any contradictory statements, you were very consistent, and open to other ideas, and I have a lot of respect for you based on that.
Nadir wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that r..."
I'd rather live in a world without books by Dan Brown. But, I guess that wasn't one of the options.
Hazel wrote: "I suggested some alternative explanations, and we talked about coincidences and probabilities, if I recall correctly (I'm not trawling back though to find it, its aaaaaggggeeeesss ago), you then went quiet for a couple of days, and came back and said after due consideration, you still think theres a god that was involved in your experiences. "
You recall correctly. I was questioning whether or not you meant people without evidence, "good" or scientific, should not take part in the discussion. It seems that's not what you were saying; at this point, I think you were addressing someone specifically and not suggesting that people who don't have "good" or scientific proof have no place in the discussion. Believers do not have scientific proof. I know I only have my personal experience. And, I realize that's not "acceptable" or "adequate" proof to some. I get it and am okay with that.
One point I wanted to make was ... people truly do define things differently, therefore, they experience things differently. And, I'm not just talking all things religious. While some favor scientific evidence, for example, others (especially from certain cultures) look at scientific evidence and personal experience. The latter group would see more balance in looking at both. I sometimes wonder at people's understanding of this, especially when I see things questioning whether some are reasonable, for example. People who solely favor a "scientific" approach to life don't need to buy into the other way or accept it for themselves. I do wonder, though ... whether or not, hmmm.... I'm not sure I know how to phrase this. I wonder if, sometimes, some people chalk such differences up to lack of intellect or lack of reason and don't look at the cultural differences that exist.
Yeah, I know. I'll stop before I say something like, "I'm okay. You're okay."
You recall correctly. I was questioning whether or not you meant people without evidence, "good" or scientific, should not take part in the discussion. It seems that's not what you were saying; at this point, I think you were addressing someone specifically and not suggesting that people who don't have "good" or scientific proof have no place in the discussion. Believers do not have scientific proof. I know I only have my personal experience. And, I realize that's not "acceptable" or "adequate" proof to some. I get it and am okay with that.
One point I wanted to make was ... people truly do define things differently, therefore, they experience things differently. And, I'm not just talking all things religious. While some favor scientific evidence, for example, others (especially from certain cultures) look at scientific evidence and personal experience. The latter group would see more balance in looking at both. I sometimes wonder at people's understanding of this, especially when I see things questioning whether some are reasonable, for example. People who solely favor a "scientific" approach to life don't need to buy into the other way or accept it for themselves. I do wonder, though ... whether or not, hmmm.... I'm not sure I know how to phrase this. I wonder if, sometimes, some people chalk such differences up to lack of intellect or lack of reason and don't look at the cultural differences that exist.
Yeah, I know. I'll stop before I say something like, "I'm okay. You're okay."
I certainly don't chalk it up to lack of intellect or reason, and I certainly enjoy looking at different cultures etc, they're fascinating. However, the subjective "truths" of cultural differences have no effect on the objective truths of the world we live in. As interesting as cultural differences are, an objective truth is the same no matter where you are, or how you were raised. Now I'm getting far too philosophical :P
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I suggested some alternative explanations, and we talked about coincidences and probabilities, if I recall correctly (I'm not trawling back though to find it, its aaaaaggggeeeesss ago..."I personally think if one can be honest and distinguish between objective truth, and the more personal, subjective "faith" there's nothing "wrong" with being a believer. :) And as to the "culture differences" stuff, I kind of wonder if it's something like in math people can choose to accept different axioms (at least in theory) beyond those more or less intuitive ones like ZFC?
A world without this book would be better.
Ah, come on .... It did get me to crack open my old art history book!
;)
;)
Hazel wrote: "When I asked cs to back up his claim, he could have offered anything that he considered evidence for what he was saying. Instead he avoided the question, though to his merit, he did ask me what I w..."I did not intend to come back to this thread since Shannon was making excellent headway by herself.
This post does look a bit like you are now back tracking and trying to bring Shannon onside.
Quote Hazel "When I asked cs to back up his claim, he could have offered anything that he considered evidence for what he was saying. Instead he avoided the question".
I answered the question many times but you were not happy with the reply; it did not meet the criteria you felt that we should all adhere to, the rules that your philosophical debating allowed.
Quote Hazel 'The majority of this talk about presenting evidence has directly and indirectly come from that point'
You are correct. You ask for evidence to be presented to a standard that your philosophical thought process demands, but are unable to perceive the idea of belief. Yet belief has a place in connection with philosophy of mind.
Quote philosophy now: 'Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the New Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence'. But is it right?
I don't think so. It's not a get out of jail free card in these debates.
I'm not using a philosophical thought process, Im using an evidence based one. I asked for evidence, and explained what is generally accepted as good evidence, this sin't based on philosophy, this is based on an understanding that studies have shown how inaccurate and easily fooled the human brain is, thus evidence based on eyewitness testimony and anecdotes is low quality.for the nth time I understand belief. I used to be pagan.
No, I wasn't that impressed with your response, and I explained why. You simply repeated yourself. You didn't engage in the discussion properly, and we had to actually metaphorically beat you round the head with some questions before you stopped using avoidance tactics and gave some sort of answer. We get that you believe, we get that you don't think you need evidence in order to believe. We also get that you think that we're "not supposed" to question your beliefs, but tough, we will, because we a) want to understand them and b) may be able show where they may fall down. Its debate, its duscussion, its about point and counter point, not point, counterpoint, restate original point while ignoring everything else that has been said.
Which philosopher are you quoting there? Why are we back to calls to authority and using other peoples words? If we're playing that game, lets hear from Bertrand Russell:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
Maintain atheism without evidence? But atheism isn't a belief system, thus doesn't require evidence, it is simply a stance, atheism is the rejection of someone elses claim based on the lack of evidence for it.
get of jail free? you mean like the one religious people have been pulling for generations, that religion and religious belief is exempt from investigation and cannot be questioned? That they must be "respected" simply because they have the label "religious". I'm not using a get out of Jail free card, but you certainly seem to when you claim you don't need evidence.
Belief may not need evidence, but the claim that the belief is based on does.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Which is why we keep doing science, to get answers to those questions which in the past were 'brick walls'. What we do not say is "oh, a tricky question....let's take the easy way out and just say god did it, then we don't have to worry about finding the real answer".
cs said: "Also science has not advanced at all with regards to theories about the soul. "
Nor has it advanced with regards to theories about the tooth fairy. The concept of a soul is purely religious, there is no concept of a soul in science. There is no need for one.
cs said: "Also I read today that Richard Dawkins, the athiest's great leader now admits that he is agnostic. Maybe he knows something athiest's don't, or maybe he just wants to con the public with another best seller. :)"
They are not mutually exclusive positions. You can be an atheist and an agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic...
cs said: "No my morality is not based on fear of divine. "
Finally :) Ok then, what is it based on? The bible?